“R.P. Jr. and who controls the agenda

….The problem with these bad arguments is similar to other lazy arguments like the ol’ slippery slope claim: the argument is an easy one to come up with in some form or another, but because every once in a great while it actually is valid, it’s impossible to dismiss categorically….”

http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2007/03/rp-jr-and-who-controls-agenda.html

But all this means is that we are all standing at various levels on ladders, and when Simon Says, every body take one step up, we do so, all of us. Really nothing has changed except that we have more goodies to play with and a few more people are starting up ladders. The cause of the damage is not the wealth or the population. The cause is, whaa hoppen maw?

So just what is the point of saying let us measure wealth and population? The numbers will keep rising for the forseeable future and unless someone says not one more person is allowed to live in, say Denver anymore, or else decree that the value of money will now stabilize until the great whoosis says otherwise, these trends will do what they have been doing. Even if you say I am going to discount, cut these numbers to set up a range as if there had been no change since 1940, you could do it, but what is the point.
It is the insurance companies that want to know what is it going to cost 5 years hence and should we get right out of that market. Maybe Starte Farm will do that. For us people types what we need to know is whether the physical evidence says we are likely to get extreme events with increasing frequency or what. That is climate science, not economics and not Insurer’s business calculation. There is a correlation, well of course there is and it may be a handy to measure A by counting B. But climate science rules.

“And with regards to some of the financial implications suggested by the Stern report, one need only look to the insurance industry for validation of the potential costs of global warming. On Wednesday, the reinsurance giant Munich Re reported, “driven by climate change, weather related disasters could cost as much as a trillion dollars in a single year by 2040″.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/19/nclim19.xml&page=4

I discussed this here:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000989more_climate_and_dis.html

Thanks for your comments.

You ask: “Are you seriously suggesting that these vary broad and diverse groups have some obligation to form bodies to review and criticize either science summaries or policy arguments that are flawed, dishonest, or misleading? Could this possibly work, and who would pay for it?”

The best rsponse to this is to observe that there are many bodies that exist “to review and criticize either science summaries or policy arguments.”

For instance. a few of many such organizations:

in the US:

OTA (RIP), GAO, NRC

internationally:

IPCC, IMoSEB

other countries:

UK Foresight
Enquete commissions (Europe, esp. Germany)

Many (not all) of the mischaracterizations that I have documented involve institutions such as these failing to adhere to their own standards.

Thanks.

TT: “your generalized criticisms of scientists, the media and responsible advocacy groups is wrong-headed and naively attributes to these groups collective responsibilities that society has not placed on them (as opposed to our legislatures and administrative agencies) and that they in any even are not structured to bear.”

Are you seriously suggesting that these vary broad and diverse groups have some obligation to form bodies to review and criticize either science summaries or policy arguments that are flawed, dishonest, or misleading? Could this possibly work, and who would pay for it?

You state that “As documented in this post, such arguments are in fact being advanced. I suggest that we hold the scientific community to the exact same standards that we expect, for instance, from the intelligence community on issues like WMDs and Iraq.”

Roger, there is a world of difference between executive branch/mikitary intelligence agencies and the scientific community at large, the media and advocacy groups. Surely you are not suggesting some form of government control over these other groups – it is just that I have difficulty understanding just quite what it is that you ARE proposing.

TT

I believe in Say’s Law: Supply follows demand.

Some say I’m old-fashioned, but I have some anecdotes.

I’ve long tried to get journalists to discuss racism in German universities. No chance. Germans do not want to read in the newspaper that they are racists.

I’ve also long tried to get a discussion on the economic impacts of climate change into the newspapers. Years of abject failure were followed by slinging mud at Nick Stern.

“I think that Roger wonders is how it can be that the public wants to read some good ol’ mud-slinging on climate change, rather than a proper discussion. And why the scientific community continues to provide mud.”

I think you may be confusing supply with demand.

RBB

Separating the good from the bad is an age old problem, but it is a problem that I believe has been slowly getting better since the dawn of civilization. Now it is rapidly improving.

You are looking at that progress right now. No longer is information controlled by a few groups. The traditional media no longer controls the news, as drudge and the bloggers have corrected them many times. No longer is science progressing through slow and inefficient journals. The Pielke’s sites are great examples of sites that spread the word and move the debates forward faster than ever. There are many others. Despite what it may seem, it is even getting harder and harder to be a crooked politician, although we still need to make a lot more progress there.

The main problem now is for any one individual to take in all the information, even in relatively narrow fields. The Internet is moving us forward, but I believe the next quantum leap will be the development of AI to access, collate and present pertinent information without spin to each individual decision maker.

I hope I live to see it!

Thanks for your comments and questions. Lots to respond to here.

1. I agree with Oreskes’ conclusion that “there is no need to wait for proof, no need to demand it, and no basis to expect it?” In my work on hurricanes I have often made the point that whatever the science of hurricanes and global warming eventually says, we can proceed today on more effective policy responses based on what we already know, as imperfect as it is.

2. I do not assess the science presented by Rachel Carson because I have no expertise in that area.

3. You ask: “Is there some general obligation of scientists, qua scientists, to monitor what nonscientists (politicians, bureaucrats, journalists, pundits, corporations, enviros etc.) say about climate change and to issue pulic and/or private corrections or perceived errors?”

Response: At a minimum, scientists should not be advancing policy arguments that are flawed, dishonest, or misleading. Seems fairly obvious to me!

3. You ask: “Or is this not an obligation of scientists per se, but one shared by “the media” and “responsible advocacy groups” as well?”

Response: I agree. Certainly it also seems obvious that the media and responsible advocacy groups should not advance policy arguments that are flawed, dishonest, or misleading. I assume that you’d agree.

4. You write:

“it is puzzling to see you both decry on this thread a lack of organized, consistent review of public statements and policy proposals made about climate change, while on other threads you have (1) criticized science academies such as the Royal Society when they have attempted to provide more information as to industry funding of pundits and (2) criticized journalists such as Roberts and Monbiot who have castigated industry-funded disinformation programs.”

Lots of misrepresentation of my views in this passage.

A. I am not calling for a “review” — I am simply asking people to make good policy arguments. As I wrote, “the collective willingness to overlook bad policy arguments unsupported (or even contradicted) by the current state of science while at the same time trumpeting the importance of scientific consensus is evidence of the comprehensive and pathological politicization of science in the policy debate over global warming.”

B. I’ll stick by my criticism of the Royal Society taking on the role of an advocacy group.

C. I have never “criticized journalists such as Roberts and Monbiot who have castigated industry-funded disinformation programs.” Perhaps you are thinking of someone else.

Bottom line — scientists have a priviledged position in our society. Given the importance of science to our collective well-being, this status is well deserved. However, with such status comes responsibilities. One such responsibility is to avoid making policy arguments that are flawed, dishonest, or misleading.

As documented in this post, such arguments are in fact being advanced. I suggest that we hold the scientific community to the exact same standards that we expect, for instance, from the intelligence community on issues like WMDs and Iraq.

Thanks!